RAHEES AHMED Vs. SOMOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in waiving the defects pointed-out by the office. The defects pointed-out by the office are, therefore, waived.

(2.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29th May, 1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bharatpur, in Civil Suit No. 19/1995 and Execution No. 8/1994 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. From the facts stated it appears that Smt. Somoti wife of Sohanlal, filed a suit for ejectment against Ms. Tabo and India Engineering Corporation for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity and default etc. It also appears that during the pendency of the suit, Ms. Tabo, died and in her place, her legal representative Dinesh was brought on record. Dinesh admitted that he did not pay any rent to the land-lord. He further stated that he had sublet the tenancy to one Kallu, on the basis of compromise since the decree was passed and in execution proceeding Kallu filed objections that since he is the tenant, he should not be evicted in pursuance of the decree passed on the basis of the compromise. It is admitted by the parties that a regular suit has been filed by Kallu for grant of injunction.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the execution proceedings and the petitioner may challenge the decree by means of a regular suit in case, he thinks that the decree was nullity, in-operative and was without jurisdiction. In view of the said facts, I am of the opinion, that the revision petition is wholly devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However the petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the premises in question. In the meantime, the petitioner may press his injunction application before the competent Court. Revision Dismissed.